Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on February 10, 2017

Bookmark and Share

EIA: Short-Term Energy Outlook



Forecast Highlights

Global liquid fuels

  • Implied global petroleum and liquid fuels inventories are estimated to have increased by 0.8 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2016. EIA expects the oil market to be relatively balanced in 2017 and 2018, with inventory draws averaging 0.1 million b/d in 2017 and builds averaging 0.2 million b/d in 2018. The revised forecast, which reduces average inventory builds from last month’s outlook, resulted from changes to estimates of historical global liquid fuels consumption that created a higher base for consumption during recent years and the forecast period. See International Data Revisions and the STEO Forecast for more discussion about this change.
  • U.S. crude oil production averaged an estimated 8.9 million b/d in 2016. U.S crude oil production is forecast to average 9.0 million b/d in 2017 and 9.5 million b/d in 2018.
  • Benchmark North Sea Brent crude oil spot prices averaged $55/barrel (b) in January, a $1/b increase from December. This price was $24/b higher than the January 2016 average, and it was the highest monthly average for Brent spot prices since July 2015.
  • EIA forecasts Brent crude oil prices to average $55/b in 2017 and $57/b in 2018. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices are forecast to average about $1/b less than Brent prices in 2017. The NYMEX contract values for April 2017 delivery traded during the five-day period ending February 2 suggest that a range from $45/b to $65/b encompasses the market expectation of WTI prices in April 2017 at the 95% confidence level.
  • U.S. regular gasoline retail prices are expected to decrease from an average of $2.35/gallon (gal) in January 2017 to an average of $2.27/gal in February and then rise to $2.33/gal in March. U.S. regular gasoline retail prices are forecast to average $2.39/gal in 2017 and $2.44/gal in 2018.

Natural gas

  • U.S. dry natural gas production is forecast to average 73.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2017, a 1.3 Bcf/d increase from the 2016 level. This increase reverses a 2016 production decline, which was the first decline since 2005. Natural gas production in 2018 is forecast to increase by an average of 4.1 Bcf/d from the 2017 level.
  • In January, average Henry Hub natural gas spot prices fell by 29 cents per million British thermal units (MMBtu) from December levels to $3.30/MMBtu. Mild January temperatures, which were the warmest since 2006, contributed to lower prices.
  • Increasing capacity for natural gas-fired electric generation, growing domestic natural gas consumption, and new export capabilities contribute to the forecast Henry Hub natural gas spot price rising from an average of $3.43/MMBtu in 2017 to $3.70/MMBtu in 2018. NYMEX contract values for April 2017 delivery traded during the five-day period ending February 2 suggest that a price range from $2.42/MMBtu to $4.38/MMBtu encompasses the market expectation of Henry Hub natural gas prices in April 2017 at the 95% confidence level.

Electricity, coal, renewables, and emissions

  • Total U.S. electricity generation from utility-scale plants averaged 11,150 gigawatthours per day in 2016. Forecast U.S. generation declines by 0.1% in 2017, then grows by 1.5% in 2018.
  • EIA expects the share of U.S. total utility-scale electricity generation from natural gas will fall from 34% last year to an average of 32% in 2017 as a result of higher expected natural gas prices. The forecast natural gas share is forecast to rise slightly to 33% in 2018. Coal’s generation share rises from 30% in 2016 to average 31% in both 2017 and 2018. Nonhydropower renewables are forecast to provide 9% of electricity generation in 2017 and 10% in 2018. The generation share of hydropower is forecast to be relatively unchanged from 2017 to 2018, and the nuclear share declines slightly in 2018.
  • The U.S. residential electricity price averaged 12.3 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) in January 2017 and is expected to average 12.5 cents/kWh in the first quarter of 2017. EIA expects the annual average U.S. residential electricity price to increase by 3.0% in 2017 and by 2.4% in 2018.
  • U.S. coal production is estimated to have declined by 158 million short tons (MMst) (18%) in 2016 to 739 MMst, which would be the lowest level since 1978. EIA expects growth in coal-fired electricity generation to contribute to a 3% increase in coal production in 2017. Coal production is expect to increase by 1% in 2018.
  • Coal exports in November 2016 totaled 6.6 MMst, which was 35% higher than in October and 39% higher than coal exports in November 2015. Despite the monthly and year-over-year increases, EIA estimates that U.S. coal exports declined by 20% in 2016 to 59 MMst, the lowest level since 2009. Exports are expected to average 51 MMst in 2017 and 50 MMst in 2018.
  • Wind energy capacity at the end of 2016 was 81 gigawatts (GW). EIA expects capacity additions in the next two years will bring total wind capacity to 94 GW by the end of 2018.
  • After declining by 1.7% in 2016, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are projected to increase by 0.3% in 2017 and by 1.4% in 2018. Energy-related CO2 emissions are sensitive to changes in weather, economic growth, and energy prices.

16 Comments on "EIA: Short-Term Energy Outlook"

  1. Apneaman on Fri, 10th Feb 2017 7:55 pm 

    Speaking of completly fucking useless and wasteful bureaucracies…..

  2. Midnight Oil on Fri, 10th Feb 2017 8:05 pm 

    After declining by 1.7% in 2016, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are projected to increase by 0.3% in 2017 and by 1.4% in 2018. Energy-related CO2 emissions are sensitive to changes in weather, economic growth, and energy prices.
    Trumpet…making Global Warming real again!
    But we’ll keep it our little secret.

  3. dave thompson on Fri, 10th Feb 2017 8:58 pm 

    Looks like industrial civ is going to go on just great. For now, until it does something else like collapse.

  4. Apneaman on Fri, 10th Feb 2017 9:16 pm 

    Phillips 66 pipeline fire in Paradis: What we know Friday morning

  5. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 6:15 am 

    Who cares about old-skool energy sources. The renewable energy business is like the IT-business after 1985: exploding with new developments that already is making the fossil fuel business look like an abacus.

    Good old Stanford is apparently not completely overrun by BLM and is presenting research that opens the window for solar panels 1 m2 at the price of $10 rather than the $200 of today:

    Mr Bao c.s. think that they can make panels based on plastic just as efficient as the conventional solar panels.

    Key challenge: increasing production speed from currently 20 cm/hour into something much speedier, like 80 kmh. Stanford thinks it can be done (#SendMoreMoney).

    We’re talking about solar “panels” from foil, with the price of curtains.

    Solar foil you can buy at the DIY market.

  6. Nony on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 7:29 am 

    9.0 MM bpd for 2017 U.S. sounds low. We are at 8.9 now and climbing. (Note that EIA does have a price assumption, $55 for the year. That matches the strip, also.)

  7. Midnight Oil on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 7:39 am 

    Follow-up SAY WATT!?
    Aricle alleged US scientists had manipulated data to ‘dupe’ world leaders into spending billions on climate change but supposed whistleblower says there is ‘not an issue of tampering with data!

    The Mail on Sunday quoted a former NOAA scientist, Dr John Bates, as saying the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, had insisted “on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation” and “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy”.

    But in a subsequent interview with E&E News, Dr Bates stressed he did not believe the data itself had been manipulated to present a false picture

    Just a misunderstanding… SORRY

  8. Nony on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 8:09 am 

    9.0 MM bpd for the year average implies a ramp from current 8.9 to 9.1 (DEC16 to DEC17). I think it’s more likely we add 0.5 MM bpd, not 0.2. So, we would ramp from 8.9 to 9.4. Average would be 9.15 MM bpd. Round up and you’re at 9.2 MM bpd.

    I would not be surprised to see the Permian add another 0.5 MM bpd just on its own. Rest of country is probably a wash, with small increase in the Gulf (old projects still coming on) and small decrease in the Bakken (which will still be differential challenged at the marginal barrel, because of needing to run on the Buffet trains, even after DAPL is completed).

    In 2015, we averaged 9.4 MM bpd (and hit a high of 9.6 MM bpd in April). 2017 would be the second highest year after 2015, if my growth call plays out. With another increase in 2018, we could end up back at 9.4 MM bpd for 2018 average. And an exit rate of 10 MM bpd at year end. This would be flirting with breaking the US peak of the early 70s.

    Texas is growing very strongly. We kissed the same peak of the 70s for Texas in spring 2015. Assuming the Permian growth scenario, likely to be back up that level in 2018 or even clearly breaking past the record.

    All of this supposes no price crash, continued mid-50s oil.

  9. Davy on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 8:11 am 

    MO, you guys are all hot and bothered about climate change like there is a solution. What is that solution? I want to know. If you are all hot and bothered about who is to blame, well, we are all to blame. I agree with you some more than others but at this point we are all screwed as far as I can tell. If you are hoping green technos like clog are going to save us with a fantasy alternative energy civilization, I think that is more fantasy. Techno’s are vital for the future of hospices and lifeboats but we are not getting out of jail free. We can point our bony fingers at all the cancer kings but at some point we pissed off white guys look ridiculous. It is all of us old white guys here that are to blame. We used the carbon that is in the atmosphere so in a way we are to blame. Please lets all cut off our ears in penance.

    Offer some solutions and maybe you won’t feel so angry. The blame and complain game is a dead end. If you honestly think we have a chance to turn this around then Yes, I agree you have a point pointing fingers at deniers. I have not seen a thread of evidence that we can turn this around. I do believe we can go into shut down mode with civilization like a ship that has hit an iceberg and is closing off compartments to aid in slowing down the sinking ship. We can then man the lifeboats and care for the injured. That is the only solution I see. There is also just being cavalier at the bar of the sinking ship drinking dirty martinis and talking stories of our carbon dirty youths. Getting drunk in the anticipation of that final drink that kills us…gulp..lights out. In our case it will be starvation, exposure, and disease.

  10. Nony on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 8:12 am 

    Oops. My math was wrong. Exit rate for 2018 would be 9.9, not 10. Also the average for 2018 would be 9.65.

  11. Davy on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 8:32 am 

    Thanks Nony, I don’t have the oily, techno, market based capitalism optimism for life you do but I really enjoy your well supported and realistic comments. You give a technical expertise here from a trader’s point of view which is essential to understand the true picture. Rock is another that gives an insider view point of what is happening. I am looking for the truth not what satisfies my view of a collapsing modern civilization. I copied and pasted your comment to my notes. I will check in with you in 2018 to praise you are rough you up.

  12. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 8:52 am 

    The nations bordering the North Sea are lucky to have this gigantic wind recourse at their doorstep, because of the shallow water:

    There is a new development however that will enable access to offshore wind energy for almost everybody, since the world ocean’s cover 70% of the planet’s surface:

    The windfloat.

    Here, why the wind blow does harder at sea than on land:

  13. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 9:04 am 

    The wind potential for the North Sea is already excellent, but with windfloats you can harvest endless energy from the North and South Atlantic, as well as the Western Pacific (China):

    (for global wind speed map scroll down a little)

    Ideal locations with nearby for service stations: Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Labrador, China, South-Africa.

    First such park to be opened by 2020 in the Mediterranean, south of France:

  14. Midnight Oil on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 9:05 am 

    Davy, Got me ALL wrong…not bothered by the fact we are causing the Global Warming…bothered by the fact of the outright lies and deceit by our so called “Statesman” that are obligated to act in the public good?
    Perhaps there is no solution, but there will NOT be any public policy discussion if those in public office or high corporate office do not live up to their responsibility.
    By any measure, we live in a corrupt decadent age and if the Bible is any indication of humanity fate…dig a hole.

  15. Cloggie on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 9:12 am 

    These are better windfloat videos:

    “WindFloat Construction Timelapse”

    “Principle Power, Inc. Windfloat”

  16. rockman on Sat, 11th Feb 2017 4:45 pm 

    Cloggie – Windfloats…very interesting. In the Gulf Coast we already have many production facilities to build, launch and set them. Years ago Texas was the first state to offer offshore wind leases. And unlike all the other states Texas (not the federal govt) has complete authority over the first 10 miles from the beach. And similar to the North Sea shallow waters. And given one of our biggest offshore windfarms is right on the south coast there won’t be any legal battle like the one that’s been waged by New England states against the federal govt.

    But oddly enough the general acceptance of onshore wind farms, even along the shoreline, is THE big obstacle for deployment of windfloats offshore Texas. They certainly appear to be the lowest cost offshore infrastructure I’ve seen. But much more expensive then a simple concrete slab for a land based turbine.

    But while Texas has 370 miles of shoreline Florida has over 500 miles off its relatively protected Gulf of Mexico side. But back to the same problem: lawsuits by the state. FL has already waged such a war over oil/NG leases in federal waters. And, to a fair dergree, won. Of course potential pollution wouldn’t be an issue. But back to aesthetics: folks will raise hell over the prospect of seeing the windfloats from the beach.

    OTOH FL is the third largest electricity consuming state after Texas and CA. Renewable energy accounted for only 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation and early 90% of that comes from biomass. And 83% of the natural gas consumed in Florida is used to generate electricity. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average. There are also significant construction facilities nearby in Alabama and Mississippi.

    So it seems like windfloats would make a lot of sense on Florida’s west coast. And because of politics there’s no way in hell it will happen. At least not until folks in FL are sweating in the dark in the future. And then it will take years to remedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *